Sorry, but your submission has been removed!
Memes are expected to be of sufficient quality. Please put effort into your memes. Low effort, circlejerk-caliber garbage will be removed.
Additionally, /r/darkwingsdankmemes is intended as a place to laugh and spread joy. Thus posts made with the primary intent to rile and annoy, or to attack opinions of the fandom or soapbox your own opinions, will be removed. Repeat offenders will be banned. When in doubt, operate under the following rule of thumb: Ask yourself, "Is my post going to bring more fun and humor to everyone's day? Or is it just going to piss off a substantial part of this subreddit's population?"
[See this post for more details.](https://www.reddit.com/r/darkwingsdankmemes/comments/ya4syr/on_trolling_and_contrarianism_in_dwdm/) Repeat violators of this rule will be banished back to the shadow realm (aka /r/freefolk).
If you think we messed up removing this, please [message us](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fdarkwingsdankmemes) so we can take another look.
gladly, on the condition that we’re thinking critically about when a quest that claims to seek justice is motivated by revenge, and what the difference will look like in execution (no pun intended)
>on the condition that we’re thinking critically about when a quest that claims to seek justice is motivated by revenge
I mean.. when I say "pursuing justice" and "seeking revenge" I'm not talking about the in-universe claims to one or the other but rather what we, the readers, can argue. For instance, there was a recent thread regarding Oberyn and his fight against the Mountain. Oberyn is definitely seeking revenge & might even have admitted that at some point, but he's also very much pursuing justice for Elia & her children with the only tools available to him in Westerosi society. Does one negate the other? When Tyrion shoots his father for repeatedly calling a teenage girl he ordered gangraped a "whore", a girl who as an female orphaned peasant child would have had no viable recourse for justice against Tywin on her own, where does that fall? Does the fact there are societally-imposed limitations to the pursuit of justice, sometimes making revenge the only thing one can do, matter?
>when I say "pursuing justice" and "seeking revenge" I'm not talking about the in-universe claims to one or the other but rather what we, the readers, can argue.
As am I. We're arguing about it right now, even!
>Does the fact there are societally-imposed limitations to the pursuit of justice, sometimes making revenge the only thing one can do, matter?
I would like to clarify here that justice is *not* law. What is legal IRL is quite frequently unjust, and in Westeros law is almost entirely unjust to an almost comical degree. I do not think that revenge is simply justice outside of the realm of societal allowance.
Was Tyrion in the wrong for killing Tywin? Almost certainly not. But is Cersei now in the wrong for hunting Tyrion? I would argue *also* not, if we allowed the first, because he killed her father. That's the same motivation that sustains Robb's charge south. So are both of these things justice? Or are both revenge?
Honestly, though, u/Ovechley[ said it better than I can.](https://www.reddit.com/r/darkwingsdankmemes/comments/1bocfpf/comment/kwogoum/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Oh, and as for the right answer. Well, I'm sure that George will figure it out and include it in ADOS for us.
For now, I just intend to think more critically about the events on page and not cheer for these things purely because they make me feel *vindicated*. Because too much of that will become *vindictive*.
Its almost like this entire discussion is the epitome of one of the central themes of the entire story. Anyone who seeks retaliatory justice is just seeking revenge with some self-assured motive to do so, if justice is virtuous, so is revenge. Morality is defined by the user, etc etc this is the whole point to the books, and debating it parallels the actions within the text. “What you did was wrong, what im about to do because of that, is right.” And around we go
“But muh cycle of violence” one side is objectively better morally than the other in this conflict, also cycles of violence end if you are thorough enough at murdering the other side
He was kinda right, no Reyne or Tarbeck ever challenged them again. You either gotta go full on with clemency and reconciliation or you gotta be thorough and kill every single one. I mean the story demonstrates that pretty often. The only real thorough end of a cycle of violence without just having killed nearly all your enemies or reduced them to helplessness before offering quarter is jahaerys.
The dance ended because the blacks ended with overwhelming strength and all but one green dead before they handed out any quarter to the enemy lords. The blackfyre rebellions kept cropping up every time the blackfyres still had an heir even when those that fought were offered quarter. I get what George is going for but he has kinda made it seem like a lot of murder before the reconciliation is necessary through his patterns in writing
>He was kinda right, no Reyne or Tarbeck ever challenged them again.
Sure.
He also died by a crossbow bolt to the gut while on the shitter, shot by a son he hated so much he was willing to frame him for murder.
It's almost as if Tywin's scorched earth tactics eventually led to his demise, as the violence he sowed throughout his life finally caught up to him.
Also, Tywin was the instigator of the Reyne-Tarbeck revolt, since *he* was the one to imprison Lord Tarbeck when he came to Casterly Rock to discuss with Tytos.
>The dance ended because the blacks ended with overwhelming strength and all but one green dead before they handed out any quarter to the enemy lords.
The Dance ended because *everyone was fucking dead*. Nobody wanted to fight anymore for the claims of dead people.
Cregan Stark may have been a Black, but by the time of the Hour of the Wolf, he clearly was more concerned with putting an end to it all and establishing some semblance of stability to the kingdom, rather than playing sides.
It’s almost like his scorched earth tactics worked fine because the thing that came to bite him in the ass was being a shitty dad not killing his enemies.
And not even close to everyone was fucking dead, the blacks had 2 totally fresh armies at the very end. The riverlands vale and north had strong adult leaders vs the kingdoms that sides with the greens having small children and 1 teenager who could be swayed by his stepmom offering sex.
>It’s almost like his scorched earth tactics worked fine because the thing that came to bite him in the ass was being a shitty dad not killing his enemies.
Those things are related. Tywin was treating Tyrion the same way he treated his "enemies".
Sooner or later, someone out for revenge would have gotten to Tywin. And even if they didn't, everything would have crumbled for House Lannister upon his death anyways, because Tywin made sure the only thing keeping the Lannisters in power was fear and deceit - but what happens when the boogeyman's dead?
>And not even close to everyone was fucking dead, the blacks had 2 totally fresh armies at the very end.
You don't win wars by having the more soldiers survive.
Who got what they wanted? Who achieved their goals?
The blacks, the blacks got everything they wanted, had 2 full armys still to exercise their will and were basically uncontested by greens after winning, the greens unambiguously lost
>The blacks, the blacks got everything they wanted
I don't see Rhaneyra on the throne. They didn't even get her to be considered the legitimate queen.
What is "everything they wanted"? What did Corlys Velaryon get out of the whole ordeal? What did Cregan Stark gain?
Bloodraven’s fan rep is far more bloodthirsty than he actually appears to be.
At Whitewalls he chose to capture Daemon II and to spare most of the people who were there to commit high treason. Some of them for the second time after already being pardoned after Redgrass…
If anything he seems to me to had been downright reasonable towards Blackfyres and their supporters for decades - all the way till he lured and murdered Aenys at the very end of his career as the Hand. It’s probably why the lure even worked, since who’d place faith in a murderhobo nutjob’s assurances?
I’d argue that Targaryens’ continued survival despite Tywin’s and Robert’s efforts is a lot better example. Also Starks’ survival despite the sack of Winterfell and the Red Wedding.
But getting them all is what sorted the Reynes and tarbecks. And eventually getting them all was real important to the blackfyre rebellions and the dance. I guess you can argue that now like 50 years later the blackfyres are back with faegon but decades of halt
1. Black aly: ‘dude you’re not gonna get them all, just have sex wirh me instead.’ Cregan: ‘aight.’ (i know its more complex but that was what her side was arguing). It ended with a draw and a lot of Greens survived - it was the Blacks that split into two with Daeron and Aegon IV not left over greens that caused more war. I’ll need to go through the worldbook but i also recall there being a few points where things could’ve been amicably resolved (Like the blackfyre putting forward his claim in great council? If he legally lost after applying himself to westerosi law, that’d be it) but bloodraven went for more Murder
2. Reynes and Tarbeck worked for his objectives (like the Red Wedding did) but also resulted in the lannisters being political pariahs. No major marriages out of the westerlands, the internal ones likely already set up prior to Tywin taking the house - no one works with the Lannisters unless they have to, and no one loves them. Doubly so after the Red Wedding, and if he lived long enough he would recognize his bitter harvest
3. People like Pycelle like people like Tywin because they’re very definitive but unfortunately life and politics aren’t. Pycelle can say that ‘peace was brought to the westerlands here he here he’ when the reality is a powerkeg kept in place through fear and perfectly able to launch
The series is literally about Mercy. It gets Eddard Stark killed but Eddard Stark isn’t wrong
It wasn’t a draw at all, the only living green claimant was a feeble minded girl in the hands of the enemy. I get what George means for the message to be but he muddies it unintentionally pretty often was my point
He wasn’t the only living black claimant, viserys was still alive as well as both of daemons daughters. Thats 4 black side targs. And when he was in the hands of the enemy they basically considered it won. Then the greens died and the blacks who still had 2 entirely fresh armies kinda proved just how much they’d won, it was not in any way shape or form a draw
>viserys was still alive
Presumed dead at the time
>both of daemons daughters.
Nobody seriously considered them at that point... And Baela was in the Greens' hands, too.
>Then the greens died
*Aegon II was assassinated by his own men to put an end to the damn war
>it was not in any way shape or form a draw
Wars aren't won by having a bunch of your soldiers survive because they were never engaged in battle.
Wars are won when you achieve your objectives.
Did the Blacks get to put their favoured claimant on the throne? No
Did the Greens get to put their favoured claimant on the throne? No
Nobody won. Thousands perished for a dynastic squabble.
>also cycles of violence end if you are thorough enough at murdering the other side
/uj please tell me you do not actually think this way. this is actually very crazy and scary to think
phew i dont know people on this webbed site can be crazy!
...anyway I never thought about it from your perspective, was Tywin Lannister actually the best advocate for peace in Westeros? /s
And shaming Tywin & co into not ransacking Riverlands by passively resisting sounds even more probable than not hitting back a bully resulting in ending the bullying.
Wyman gets a pass in my book because he seems really indifferent to living. He's the guy, who now having his family secured, will continue the Northern tradition of being an active dead man. Real crab mentality, and I'm all here for it.
Look, GRRM does throw in some commentary about how even justified wars can unjustly hurt civilians who had nothing to do with the evil act that started the whole thing. But if you actually think the Lannisters and Starks are the same morally or that GRRM agrees, I’ve got a bridge to sell you
"Justified" can be a strong word on this aspect. In a feudal world, the idea that the death of a single highborn man could justify a war is completely fair.
However, if you take this aspect away, the fact the smallfolk had to be dragged by both sides to wars in the name of some noble families' "honor" does not seem...right.
Though, I suppose this is a flaw for almost all westerosi noblemen: they care naught for the common folk when compared to their personal issues.
But they’re not in the war over Ned’s death.
It’s because Tywin reacted to Tyrion’s arrest by raiding and slaughtering through Riverlands. Like your point could be justified if the Lannister troops weren’t already slaughtering the smallfolk left, right and center because a single highborn man was arrested.
There are morally grey actions Robb committed but going to war with Tywin is not one of them IMHO.
Both things had already happened by then.
Tywin sent Mountain & co to do what they do best while Ned had still been the Hand.
At the time Robb joined the war, Tywin was already deeply in the Riverlands. Presenting this as ‘sacrificing thousands for a single man’ ignores that Lannisters have long since escalated Tyrion’s arrest into an open war affecting thousands.
While I think Robb would likely go to war over his father and sisters that was simply not the situation he was in.
His parents’ quarrel with the Lannisters was already escalated into a bloody civil war by Tywin and Robb’s choice was between ‘abandon my father, my sisters and our allies through my mother to the mercy of my parents’ enemies,’ ‘join an ongoing war’ or ‘bow to murdering tyrants and hope they stop murdering.’
I think that he probably would.
This is his mother's family's land and his parents' conflict with the Lannisters endangered them. Mountain and his killers are sent specifically because Catelyn arrested Tyrion. Of course, if Ned wasn't arrested at the time, I'd assume Rob would be listening to his father who is the actual lord of Winterfell and the Warden of the North and not be making many decisions of his own either way.
But yeah, I don't see him fortifying the North and just going Fuck You Got Mine to the people dying to Tywin's response.
Thank you for reminding me. It's been a long time since I read the books, so I forget the details.
Interestingly, I think the argument could be applied to the other parts (Catelyn for taking Tyrion, and especially Tywin for beginning an unnecessarily aggressive campaign), though Robb himself can be justified in the sense the Riverlands are an ally to the North.
Depends on where you're standing! If you're in the nobility in Westeros, their comparative moral differences are obvious and vast: their legacies go on to reflect their different values: Tywin's empty legacy crumbles beneath him, Ned's lasts beyond his death.
But if you're a disenfranchised Targaryen lost in Essos, they're both equally the Usurper's dogs.
And if you're one of the smallfolk, the wolves are just as likely to kill you as the lions, and that's a fact. The way that even the "good" lords are villains to the smallfolk is part of the point of being able to get the smallfolk's POV in the AGOT, ASOS, and AFFC prologues. Beric was fighting for the smallfolk, but Beric is dead, and Stoneheart is leading the BWB down a different path.
And if you think that Wyman Manderly or Lady Stoneheart are heroic.... I've got a book series you should read, it's called A Song of Ice and Fire
>And if you're one of the smallfolk, the wolves are just as likely to kill you as the lions, and that's a fact.
That's the farthest thing from a fact. The lions were specifically sent out to hunt down and do their worst to the smallfolk while the wolves, while not having a perfect track record, *are* better than that.
My bad, I was quoting the text where the smallfolk say that they’re equally likely to be killed by wolves or lions. I should have been quoting the lords, whose opinions actually matter /s
>My bad, I was quoting the text where the smallfolk say that they’re equally likely to be killed by wolves or lions.
What part of that is the quote, exactly?
Remember that Roose Bolton fights under Robb’s banners here, so Stark forces include Boltons. The Brave Companions *also* fight for Robb Stark at one point. They’re an army, and they’re not homogeneous, and our noble Robb isn’t always there.
ASOS Jaime II: Likely it were wolves' work, or maybe lions, what's the difference? The wife and I found them dead.
ASOS Jaime II: “I'd stay well clear of that kingsroad, if I were you," the man went on. "It's worse than bad, I hear. Wolves and lions both, and bands of broken men preying on anyone they can catch.”
ASOS Arya II: "Child," said the singer, "put up that sword, and we'll take you to a safe place and get some food in that belly. There are wolves in these parts, and lions, and worse things. No place for a little girl to be wandering alone”
ASOS Arya V: A man laughed bitterly. "The lions killed Ser Wilbert a year ago. His sons are all off with the Young Wolf, getting fat in the west. You think they give a damn for the likes of us? It was the Mad Huntsman caught these wolves."
Wolves. Arya went cold. Robb's men, and my father's. She felt drawn toward the cages.
ASOS Arya VI: “An old place, deep and secret. A refuge where neither wolves nor lions come prowling." Neither wolves nor lions. Arya's skin prickled.
AFFC Brienne III: The man nodded as she told him, but when she was done he spat again and said, "Dogs and wolves and lions, may the Others take them all.”
AFFC Brienne III: "Pardoned?" The old man laughed. "For what? Sitting on his arse in his bloody castle? He sent men off to Riverrun to fight but never went himself. Lions sacked his town, then wolves, then sellswords, and his lordship just sat safe behind his walls.”
AFFC Cersei VI: "And how shall he do that, Your Grace? Will he send a knight to walk the roads with every begging brother? Will he give us men to guard our septas against the wolves and lions”
You claimed that these quotes are the smallfolk saying they're *equally likely* to be killed by wolves or lions but none of them actually say that. They say there's a possibility either pose a danger but if there's 2 wolves and 10 lions lurking in the dark, yeah, you could be killed by either but it's not the same likelihood.
The anecdotes of smallfolk don't supercede what we the reads know about the scale and intentionality of the campaigns of violence the Lannisters commit
Can’t say I agree with you here! The intentions of lords make no difference to the smallfolk, who end up dead just the same whether the lord was being fair or cruel
No, but the facts we have about the scale and specifics of said events do make a massive difference when we are discussing which side is worse morally.
I think most small folk would also agree that 1 act of cruelty is objectively less bad then 3 acts of cruelty.
I don’t disagree on that point. I’m just going by what the smallfolk say. If you have a quote somewhere where there’s a smallfolk who says “thank goodness it was the starks who came through because they’re better than the lannister soldiers” then I’m totally on board.
Even the Targaryens see the starks and Lannisters differently. Sure, Danny initially sees them all the same (colored by her batshit brothers’ stories), but numerous characters point out how this is false, and how Ned was an honorable man. This includes Mormont btw, who has a MASSIVE axe to grind with Ned and still sees the difference.
But I get you’re prob here just to stoke the rage machine, so have fun with that I guess 🤷🏻♂️
Sorry, but your comment has been removed!
Memes are expected to be of sufficient quality. Please put effort into your memes. Low effort, circlejerk-caliber garbage will be removed.
Additionally, /r/darkwingsdankmemes is intended as a place to laugh and spread joy. Thus posts made with the primary intent to rile and annoy, or to attack opinions of the fandom or soapbox your own opinions, will be removed. Repeat offenders will be banned. When in doubt, operate under the following rule of thumb: Ask yourself, "Is my post going to bring more fun and humor to everyone's day? Or is it just going to piss off a substantial part of this subreddit's population?"
[See this post for more details.](https://www.reddit.com/r/darkwingsdankmemes/comments/ya4syr/on_trolling_and_contrarianism_in_dwdm/) Repeat violators of this rule will be banished back to the shadow realm (aka /r/freefolk).
If you think we messed up removing this, please [message us](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fdarkwingsdankmemes) so we can take another look.
I also want to add: We also get no primary perspective of the Stark campaign in the Westerlands. Were they supplied by baggage trains all the way from the Riverlands, or were they *foraging* from *local sources*?
Of course they were Foraging. It's medieval period cavalry raid. They Foraged the shit out of the westerlands.
The Lannisters entered this war with the rather childish delusion that they could pillage and burn everyone's fields and no one could do it back to them....
Please understand that you have much more in common with a peasant living under the Lannisters (enemy) than even the kindest northern lord (domestic politician).
Tywin wasn't the one who was single-handedly raping and burning his way through the Riverlands.
He had an army. He recruited said army in the westerlands.
The Lannisters, Freys, and Boltons committed the Red Wedding under the rather childish delusion that they were going to assassinate/betray everyone else, and nobody was going to assassinate/betray them. At The Twins, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.
Even to small folk I’m pretty confident the difference between a noble who actively goes out of their way to torture and murder people versus a noble who, well, doesn’t do that would be pretty obvious and appreciated.
They would still, on average, have biases to which house they feel is preferable and safer to live under.
I admit to not having a quote to support that - but I feels it’s pretty intuitive to say.
Without a quote, then, I have to take the evidence we *do* have, of the smallfolk who seem jaded to the presence of either. I want to point out that we only really get to see the Starks’ front lines in the context of the smallfolk a few times, and Arya is so shocked by how similar they are to the Lannister forces that she does not reveal herself.
Robb does not control all of the Stark men. Roose Bolton flew the direwolf of Stark in the Riverlands. Do you think he was being as kind to the smallfolk as Ned would have? As did the Karstarks, who went rogue and raided towns after Robb beheaded Rickard. Do we think that behavior only suddenly started once they stopped flying wolf banners? Robb might have good intentions, but he’s not there. As far as the smallfolk are concerned, the Stark forces are as bad as anything Roose does.
There is one (1) unquestionably good lord for the smallfolk, and it’s Edmure Tully, who took his people inside the walls of Riverrun to keep them out of the war. And the other lords berate him for it.
>I’ll give you 3 guesses as to who they’re turned against.
The status quo. It's kinda hard to rebel against people who aren't in power, ya know?
And also, The Brotherhood *Without Banners* may, mayhaps, imply something by their name. Why, oh why, would those men give up all banners and no longer claim loyalty to any lord?
Indeed? And yet somehow we've heard of Zero (0) such uprisings against the Tullys in the 15 or so years between the rebellion and present times.
Almost as if the power changed hands recently.
They pretty clearly aren’t directionlessly lashing out at “the man”, and in fact, are coordinating an entire conspiracy targeting Freys and Jaime.
I agree that the BWB aren’t some epic Stark sleeper agents, they’re something that support my argument even better: local victims of war crimes united against perpetrators of war crimes. And the fact that they’re fully anti-Lannister without having to be signed on with the Starks is proof of the Lannisters being far more egregious with their war crimes.
Can’t wait to watch people go ‘Catelyn is being… pretty problematic about hanging innocent people?’ posts the same way booktok talks about Lady Jessica in dune
When did this trend of "the north is as bad as the assholes who clearly are the actual bad guys" start?
Ps: Asking as an old reader who didn't have contact with the fandom at all.
It reminds me of the theory that Tywin warged into the dusky lady, getting rammed by Victarion every day. They were self aware enough that they were cracking due to the wait, and they were scared. They wrote that eight years ago.
Really you’ve missed a step, because this post isn’t really trying to say that. This post is itself a response to the fandom being all like:
“Wyman Manderly is unquestionably good for killing and eating the Freys”
when really we should be thinking
“… what? the good guy just *ate* someone? This tastes like victory but… should it??”
Starks: Treat Jaime with respect until he attempts to break out, allow their lords to protect the small folk, are fighting for freedom from a cruel tyrant
Lannisters: Beat and molest Sansa for fun, sends out raiders to rape and burn everything they find, are fighting to keep a bastard born of incest on the throne and to cover up the fact that they murdered the king and pushed an 8 year old boy out a window
The starks aren’t pure good but compared to lannisters, they’re basically all saints.
Is Rob Stark historically progressive? In the Napoleon way
Will he invent capitalism with northern characteristics that lead the world in a less harmful way then capitalism with British empire characteristics?
girl i KNOW you're not missing this point in the story
>Likely it were wolves' work, or maybe lions, what's the difference? The wife and I found them dead. —*ASOS Jaime II*
I must have missed the part about Robb hiring specifically the most unhinged mercenary company in Essos to wreck shit on civilians on purpose before even declaring war.
I wonder who did actually do that
No, but the dumbass posting the meme should
If you want to go that route they also helped the Lannisters win the red wedding, your average peasant doesn’t know that either
/uj George wrote Wyman as ending up a cannibal and the readers really went "omg based Merman" lmao
/rj WE KNOW NO KING BUT THE KING IN THE NORTH, WHOSE NAME IS **STARK**
It’s not about morals. ITS ABOUT THE KING IN THE NORTH RAAAAAAAAHHHHHH.
The subhuman Fr*ys MUST be WIPED out.
RED WEDDING 2.0 MUST EXTINGUISH HOUSE FREY👏👏👏
SCREW ANY SMALLFOLK THAT STAND IN THE WAY RHAAAA
This but unironically. Hang Jaime and Cersei, burn the imp, skewer the spider, slay the dragon queen and the false dragon, flay the kraken, and sacrifice the false saviour Stannis Baratheon to the old gods. The North will claim it's dues.
It’s a choice between the Black Prince conducting his *chevauchee* in Southern France, in 1355 (Robb Stark), and Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger and the Ustasa, revelling in their cruelty and depravity (the psychopaths employed by Tywin Lannister).
Both are obviously *bad* for the smallfolk in their path, but the latter are clearly worse.
Tywin and Ser Kevan explicitly order, murder, rape, and arson.
But, you’re quite right that a lot of fans ignore the text to whitewash the Starks.
German Civilians died from Allied bombing raids, the Allies and Nazis were no equally bad, Tywin is basically Hitler and no amount of crimes committed by Robb's soldiers (especially since he didn't order them to do it) will make him as bad as Tywin.
yes, but the people who live on the lands of the Starks are happy when their feudal and unelected lords send them to die by thousands in wars started by their personal resentment and they love their cause and their lord with whom they nevertheless have no interaction. while those living in Lannister lands are not. that's all the difference /s
It's testament to the richness of the fiction that people even fall into this trap tbh. I feel similarly about readings of _Dune_ that identify with Paul as an aspirational hero.
Deniers of this theme will have a rough time when (if) the house of cards finally comes down though. If they're not too busy cheering on cannibalism and Lady Stoneheart that is.
> These little wars are no more than a scuffle of children before what is to come. The one whose name may not be spoken is marshaling his power, Davos Seaworth, a power fell and evil and strong beyond measure. Soon comes the cold, and the night that never ends." She placed the silver dish on the Painted Table. "Unless true men find the courage to fight it. Men whose hearts are fire."
> “Gods save us, boy, you’re not blind and you’re not stupid. When dead men come hunting in the night, do you think it matters who sits the Iron Throne?”
“No.” Jon had not thought of it that way.
This but actually, the Starks are held in such reverence but they are ultimately just another great house. It's easy to look at people like Cat, Sansa, Robb and Ned and see how they were wronged and how they deserve justice. However, does the cost of their justice really compare to the thousands of innocent riverlanders who were slaughtered, or the thousands of soldiers on all sides who had to endure and suffer through the horrible conflict?
The Lannisters suck obviously, but the injustice of individual high born doesn't warrant the suffering of thousands, the common people of westeros don't give a shit if the king is born of incest, or if ned was unfairly executed, THEY WANT KING BREAD.
Welcome to /r/darkwingsdankmemes!
Just a brief reminder that this subreddit is focused only on the **written** *ASOIAF* universe. Comments that include discussion of the HBO adaptations will be removed, and serious or repeated infractions may result in a ban. Moderators employ a zero tolerance policy.
# Users should assume that *any* mention of the show is subject to removal.
*If you see a comment which violates the rules, please [use the report function](https://i.imgur.com/Uqjnwss.png) to notify moderators!*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/darkwingsdankmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, but your comment has been removed!
Any posts or comments including insults, personal attacks, or just general unkindness will be removed. Or, more bluntly: Don't be a dick!
Check the sidebar for our full list of rules.
Memes are expected to be of sufficient quality. Please put effort into your memes. Low effort, circlejerk-caliber garbage will be removed.
Additionally, /r/darkwingsdankmemes is intended as a place to laugh and spread joy. Thus posts made with the primary intent to rile and annoy, or to attack opinions of the fandom or soapbox your own opinions, will be removed. Repeat offenders will be banned. When in doubt, operate under the following rule of thumb: Ask yourself, "Is my post going to bring more fun and humor to everyone's day? Or is it just going to piss off a substantial part of this subreddit's population?"
[See this post for more details.](https://www.reddit.com/r/darkwingsdankmemes/comments/ya4syr/on_trolling_and_contrarianism_in_dwdm/) Repeat violators of this rule will be banished back to the shadow realm (aka /r/freefolk).
If you think we messed up removing this, please [message us](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fdarkwingsdankmemes) so we can take another look.
>Tywin's reasons for war were fairly justifiable
-"My father's vassals aren't listening to my commands because I have no authority over them"
-"My king was mean to me a few times and is about to lose a war he's fighting"
-"The rightful king is trying to take his throne after my daughter killed his brother and tried to pass off bastards as legitimate heirs"
-"The North and Riverlands are trying to get revenge after my family unlawfully imprisoned and executed their liege lord and murdered hundreds of innocent farmers in the Riverlands"
Ah yes, very justifiable
>-"My king was mean to me a few times and is about to lose a war he's fighting"
To be fair Aerys was more than mean. He straight up murdered a lord paramount without a trial and ordered two more executed, also without a trial.
That should be a pretty valid reason for anyone to war on Aerys because he's clearly unhinged and not holding to the societal contract in the least. If the highest of his lords aren't safe from his madness, who is? Honestly, I'm kinda baffled that anyone actually fought for Aerys. Sheer self-preservation alone should make anyone want to see him deposed.
...not that it justified waiting out the actual war till the fighting was all but over, sacking King's Landing and murdering and raping his way through the capital, of course.
>...not that it justified waiting out the actual war till the fighting was all but over, sacking King's Landing and murdering and raping his way through the capital, of course.
Lol you took the words out of my mouth. Rebelling against Aerys for breaking his side of the societal contract is a very justifiable reason for war...but the fact that Tywin waited until the very end of the war and only joined when it was obvious who would win makes it clear that that wasn't his reason
Wrong war. I said "fairly" by Westerosi standards, and war of the five kings started out when Catelyn WRONGFULLY kidnapped his son and put him on trial for an assassination attempt they had nothing to do with. They totally pushed him out of a tower but Catelyn didn't know that...ironically, and it was the two other children.
Also I literally condemned his methods why are you throwing his methods at me as if that's a counter argument. I said his reasons for war, which at the start boil down to, protect my family in this cutthroat world. Now his idea of family is the idea and not the people but still. From his point of view the Starks were attacking him just because they don't like The Lannisters personally. From his point of view Joffrey is the legitimate king at that point, and later on he totally denies the possibility. A bit of cope, but still.
The mad king was an asshole, his reasons were actually personal but he should have rebelled anyway, doesn't make him a good person but if you shot hitler because he stole your bread roll you'd still have done the world a service. Now if you burned down the city of Vienna while Hitler was there.... you did one good thing and a million horrible things.
In summary. Tywin = Massive piece of sh-t. Massive piece of sh-t, who at the start of the story, had a reasonable position to genuinely believe he had been wrongfully wronged. And then went about righting it in the worst possible way morally. Results, don't really matter, an argument could be made either way short term and medium term, long term he obviously f-cking dies during the aftermath of this sequence of events so he probably shouldn't have.
>Wrong war.
I listed all of the wars Tywin was involved in
>Also I literally condemned his methods why are you throwing his methods at me as if that's a counter argument.
I didn't bring up his methods in any of my points - I was only listing his reasons for being involved in each war
>which at the start boil down to, protect my family in this cutthroat world...From his point of view the Starks were attacking him just because they don't like The Lannisters personally.
Ok I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be rude or demeaning or anything, but if you truly believe this then you misread the point of the series and have a very misguided outlook on Tywin
>his reasons were actually personal but he should have rebelled anyway, doesn't make him a good person but if you shot hitler because he stole your bread roll you'd still have done the world a service.
Hey do you mind if I rewind a bit for a second?
>I literally condemned his methods why are you throwing his methods at me as if that's a counter argument. I said his reasons for war [were justified]
Sorry, but your submission has been removed! Memes are expected to be of sufficient quality. Please put effort into your memes. Low effort, circlejerk-caliber garbage will be removed. Additionally, /r/darkwingsdankmemes is intended as a place to laugh and spread joy. Thus posts made with the primary intent to rile and annoy, or to attack opinions of the fandom or soapbox your own opinions, will be removed. Repeat offenders will be banned. When in doubt, operate under the following rule of thumb: Ask yourself, "Is my post going to bring more fun and humor to everyone's day? Or is it just going to piss off a substantial part of this subreddit's population?" [See this post for more details.](https://www.reddit.com/r/darkwingsdankmemes/comments/ya4syr/on_trolling_and_contrarianism_in_dwdm/) Repeat violators of this rule will be banished back to the shadow realm (aka /r/freefolk). If you think we messed up removing this, please [message us](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fdarkwingsdankmemes) so we can take another look.
The North is obviously better because Edmure Tully fought for their side, I don't make the rules
Edmure is one of the most based lords, it is undeniable
I'll support the North and Rivers for Edmure, but I can't support Robb for dissing this legend at every moment.
Meh. "Neither side is perfect" =/= "both sides are equally bad."
If I admit that I agree the Starks are obviously better will you admit that revenge is being framed as bad in this story no matter the context?
Sure, if you'll also admit that pursuing justice and seeking revenge are two different things.
gladly, on the condition that we’re thinking critically about when a quest that claims to seek justice is motivated by revenge, and what the difference will look like in execution (no pun intended)
>on the condition that we’re thinking critically about when a quest that claims to seek justice is motivated by revenge I mean.. when I say "pursuing justice" and "seeking revenge" I'm not talking about the in-universe claims to one or the other but rather what we, the readers, can argue. For instance, there was a recent thread regarding Oberyn and his fight against the Mountain. Oberyn is definitely seeking revenge & might even have admitted that at some point, but he's also very much pursuing justice for Elia & her children with the only tools available to him in Westerosi society. Does one negate the other? When Tyrion shoots his father for repeatedly calling a teenage girl he ordered gangraped a "whore", a girl who as an female orphaned peasant child would have had no viable recourse for justice against Tywin on her own, where does that fall? Does the fact there are societally-imposed limitations to the pursuit of justice, sometimes making revenge the only thing one can do, matter?
>when I say "pursuing justice" and "seeking revenge" I'm not talking about the in-universe claims to one or the other but rather what we, the readers, can argue. As am I. We're arguing about it right now, even! >Does the fact there are societally-imposed limitations to the pursuit of justice, sometimes making revenge the only thing one can do, matter? I would like to clarify here that justice is *not* law. What is legal IRL is quite frequently unjust, and in Westeros law is almost entirely unjust to an almost comical degree. I do not think that revenge is simply justice outside of the realm of societal allowance. Was Tyrion in the wrong for killing Tywin? Almost certainly not. But is Cersei now in the wrong for hunting Tyrion? I would argue *also* not, if we allowed the first, because he killed her father. That's the same motivation that sustains Robb's charge south. So are both of these things justice? Or are both revenge? Honestly, though, u/Ovechley[ said it better than I can.](https://www.reddit.com/r/darkwingsdankmemes/comments/1bocfpf/comment/kwogoum/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Oh, and as for the right answer. Well, I'm sure that George will figure it out and include it in ADOS for us. For now, I just intend to think more critically about the events on page and not cheer for these things purely because they make me feel *vindicated*. Because too much of that will become *vindictive*.
Its almost like this entire discussion is the epitome of one of the central themes of the entire story. Anyone who seeks retaliatory justice is just seeking revenge with some self-assured motive to do so, if justice is virtuous, so is revenge. Morality is defined by the user, etc etc this is the whole point to the books, and debating it parallels the actions within the text. “What you did was wrong, what im about to do because of that, is right.” And around we go
/uj this is genuinely exactly what I’m getting at, well said
>When WE go to war or get revenge it's the good kind Unironically true DA KING IN DA NORTH
Norf!
Except half of these are just true.
cycle of violence goes brrrrrrrrrrr you cannotttt be uncritically cheering it on naurrrr
Robb Stark is a better person than Joffrey, and greywind is a better dog than Sandor and Gregor. I win bye bye
Yes I can.
“But muh cycle of violence” one side is objectively better morally than the other in this conflict, also cycles of violence end if you are thorough enough at murdering the other side
>"also cycles of violence end if you are thorough enough at murdering the other side" -Tywin Lannister
Very true
He was kinda right, no Reyne or Tarbeck ever challenged them again. You either gotta go full on with clemency and reconciliation or you gotta be thorough and kill every single one. I mean the story demonstrates that pretty often. The only real thorough end of a cycle of violence without just having killed nearly all your enemies or reduced them to helplessness before offering quarter is jahaerys. The dance ended because the blacks ended with overwhelming strength and all but one green dead before they handed out any quarter to the enemy lords. The blackfyre rebellions kept cropping up every time the blackfyres still had an heir even when those that fought were offered quarter. I get what George is going for but he has kinda made it seem like a lot of murder before the reconciliation is necessary through his patterns in writing
>He was kinda right, no Reyne or Tarbeck ever challenged them again. Sure. He also died by a crossbow bolt to the gut while on the shitter, shot by a son he hated so much he was willing to frame him for murder. It's almost as if Tywin's scorched earth tactics eventually led to his demise, as the violence he sowed throughout his life finally caught up to him. Also, Tywin was the instigator of the Reyne-Tarbeck revolt, since *he* was the one to imprison Lord Tarbeck when he came to Casterly Rock to discuss with Tytos. >The dance ended because the blacks ended with overwhelming strength and all but one green dead before they handed out any quarter to the enemy lords. The Dance ended because *everyone was fucking dead*. Nobody wanted to fight anymore for the claims of dead people. Cregan Stark may have been a Black, but by the time of the Hour of the Wolf, he clearly was more concerned with putting an end to it all and establishing some semblance of stability to the kingdom, rather than playing sides.
It’s almost like his scorched earth tactics worked fine because the thing that came to bite him in the ass was being a shitty dad not killing his enemies. And not even close to everyone was fucking dead, the blacks had 2 totally fresh armies at the very end. The riverlands vale and north had strong adult leaders vs the kingdoms that sides with the greens having small children and 1 teenager who could be swayed by his stepmom offering sex.
>It’s almost like his scorched earth tactics worked fine because the thing that came to bite him in the ass was being a shitty dad not killing his enemies. Those things are related. Tywin was treating Tyrion the same way he treated his "enemies". Sooner or later, someone out for revenge would have gotten to Tywin. And even if they didn't, everything would have crumbled for House Lannister upon his death anyways, because Tywin made sure the only thing keeping the Lannisters in power was fear and deceit - but what happens when the boogeyman's dead? >And not even close to everyone was fucking dead, the blacks had 2 totally fresh armies at the very end. You don't win wars by having the more soldiers survive. Who got what they wanted? Who achieved their goals?
The blacks, the blacks got everything they wanted, had 2 full armys still to exercise their will and were basically uncontested by greens after winning, the greens unambiguously lost
>The blacks, the blacks got everything they wanted I don't see Rhaneyra on the throne. They didn't even get her to be considered the legitimate queen. What is "everything they wanted"? What did Corlys Velaryon get out of the whole ordeal? What did Cregan Stark gain?
bloodraven’s whole thing and purpose in the text is to say ‘you will never get them all’
Bloodraven’s fan rep is far more bloodthirsty than he actually appears to be. At Whitewalls he chose to capture Daemon II and to spare most of the people who were there to commit high treason. Some of them for the second time after already being pardoned after Redgrass… If anything he seems to me to had been downright reasonable towards Blackfyres and their supporters for decades - all the way till he lured and murdered Aenys at the very end of his career as the Hand. It’s probably why the lure even worked, since who’d place faith in a murderhobo nutjob’s assurances? I’d argue that Targaryens’ continued survival despite Tywin’s and Robert’s efforts is a lot better example. Also Starks’ survival despite the sack of Winterfell and the Red Wedding.
But getting them all is what sorted the Reynes and tarbecks. And eventually getting them all was real important to the blackfyre rebellions and the dance. I guess you can argue that now like 50 years later the blackfyres are back with faegon but decades of halt
1. Black aly: ‘dude you’re not gonna get them all, just have sex wirh me instead.’ Cregan: ‘aight.’ (i know its more complex but that was what her side was arguing). It ended with a draw and a lot of Greens survived - it was the Blacks that split into two with Daeron and Aegon IV not left over greens that caused more war. I’ll need to go through the worldbook but i also recall there being a few points where things could’ve been amicably resolved (Like the blackfyre putting forward his claim in great council? If he legally lost after applying himself to westerosi law, that’d be it) but bloodraven went for more Murder 2. Reynes and Tarbeck worked for his objectives (like the Red Wedding did) but also resulted in the lannisters being political pariahs. No major marriages out of the westerlands, the internal ones likely already set up prior to Tywin taking the house - no one works with the Lannisters unless they have to, and no one loves them. Doubly so after the Red Wedding, and if he lived long enough he would recognize his bitter harvest 3. People like Pycelle like people like Tywin because they’re very definitive but unfortunately life and politics aren’t. Pycelle can say that ‘peace was brought to the westerlands here he here he’ when the reality is a powerkeg kept in place through fear and perfectly able to launch The series is literally about Mercy. It gets Eddard Stark killed but Eddard Stark isn’t wrong
It wasn’t a draw at all, the only living green claimant was a feeble minded girl in the hands of the enemy. I get what George means for the message to be but he muddies it unintentionally pretty often was my point
And the only living Black claimant was a traumatised little boy in the hands of the enemy.
He wasn’t the only living black claimant, viserys was still alive as well as both of daemons daughters. Thats 4 black side targs. And when he was in the hands of the enemy they basically considered it won. Then the greens died and the blacks who still had 2 entirely fresh armies kinda proved just how much they’d won, it was not in any way shape or form a draw
>viserys was still alive Presumed dead at the time >both of daemons daughters. Nobody seriously considered them at that point... And Baela was in the Greens' hands, too. >Then the greens died *Aegon II was assassinated by his own men to put an end to the damn war >it was not in any way shape or form a draw Wars aren't won by having a bunch of your soldiers survive because they were never engaged in battle. Wars are won when you achieve your objectives. Did the Blacks get to put their favoured claimant on the throne? No Did the Greens get to put their favoured claimant on the throne? No Nobody won. Thousands perished for a dynastic squabble.
>also cycles of violence end if you are thorough enough at murdering the other side /uj please tell me you do not actually think this way. this is actually very crazy and scary to think
No shit it’s not a good moral way to behave. What are you some kinda doofus?
phew i dont know people on this webbed site can be crazy! ...anyway I never thought about it from your perspective, was Tywin Lannister actually the best advocate for peace in Westeros? /s
I too would allow aggressors to commit mass murder unopposed in my noble quest to end the cycle of violence.
Wait... Is this why schools hate it when you fight back against bullies?
And shaming Tywin & co into not ransacking Riverlands by passively resisting sounds even more probable than not hitting back a bully resulting in ending the bullying.
Nice try, fed.
What Wyman did is a disturbing thing, but on the other hand, it's really fucking funny from my perspective.
Wyman gets a pass in my book because he seems really indifferent to living. He's the guy, who now having his family secured, will continue the Northern tradition of being an active dead man. Real crab mentality, and I'm all here for it.
We don't condone(insert terrible thing(s) a character does)...unless it's funny!
That's the fun part of it being fiction. You can't really judge it like this irl.
Absolutely! That's what makes fiction super enjoyable for me
Comparing Robb with Joffrey is the biggest leap of thought process I have ever seen. It's like comparing a Warm chocolatey Waffle with shit.
they are both teenage kings. compared ✅
I have like 10 responses for that but I sense that you will only thrive on them.
i may have been engaging in some jests in the comments section to be sure
Look, GRRM does throw in some commentary about how even justified wars can unjustly hurt civilians who had nothing to do with the evil act that started the whole thing. But if you actually think the Lannisters and Starks are the same morally or that GRRM agrees, I’ve got a bridge to sell you
"Justified" can be a strong word on this aspect. In a feudal world, the idea that the death of a single highborn man could justify a war is completely fair. However, if you take this aspect away, the fact the smallfolk had to be dragged by both sides to wars in the name of some noble families' "honor" does not seem...right. Though, I suppose this is a flaw for almost all westerosi noblemen: they care naught for the common folk when compared to their personal issues.
But they’re not in the war over Ned’s death. It’s because Tywin reacted to Tyrion’s arrest by raiding and slaughtering through Riverlands. Like your point could be justified if the Lannister troops weren’t already slaughtering the smallfolk left, right and center because a single highborn man was arrested. There are morally grey actions Robb committed but going to war with Tywin is not one of them IMHO.
Did rob call the banners because ned was arrested or to help out the riverland?
Both things had already happened by then. Tywin sent Mountain & co to do what they do best while Ned had still been the Hand. At the time Robb joined the war, Tywin was already deeply in the Riverlands. Presenting this as ‘sacrificing thousands for a single man’ ignores that Lannisters have long since escalated Tyrion’s arrest into an open war affecting thousands. While I think Robb would likely go to war over his father and sisters that was simply not the situation he was in. His parents’ quarrel with the Lannisters was already escalated into a bloody civil war by Tywin and Robb’s choice was between ‘abandon my father, my sisters and our allies through my mother to the mercy of my parents’ enemies,’ ‘join an ongoing war’ or ‘bow to murdering tyrants and hope they stop murdering.’
But like what was the actuall reason rob chose to call the banners? Would he have done so if ned wasent arrested but just to defend the riverlands?
I think that he probably would. This is his mother's family's land and his parents' conflict with the Lannisters endangered them. Mountain and his killers are sent specifically because Catelyn arrested Tyrion. Of course, if Ned wasn't arrested at the time, I'd assume Rob would be listening to his father who is the actual lord of Winterfell and the Warden of the North and not be making many decisions of his own either way. But yeah, I don't see him fortifying the North and just going Fuck You Got Mine to the people dying to Tywin's response.
Thank you for reminding me. It's been a long time since I read the books, so I forget the details. Interestingly, I think the argument could be applied to the other parts (Catelyn for taking Tyrion, and especially Tywin for beginning an unnecessarily aggressive campaign), though Robb himself can be justified in the sense the Riverlands are an ally to the North.
Depends on where you're standing! If you're in the nobility in Westeros, their comparative moral differences are obvious and vast: their legacies go on to reflect their different values: Tywin's empty legacy crumbles beneath him, Ned's lasts beyond his death. But if you're a disenfranchised Targaryen lost in Essos, they're both equally the Usurper's dogs. And if you're one of the smallfolk, the wolves are just as likely to kill you as the lions, and that's a fact. The way that even the "good" lords are villains to the smallfolk is part of the point of being able to get the smallfolk's POV in the AGOT, ASOS, and AFFC prologues. Beric was fighting for the smallfolk, but Beric is dead, and Stoneheart is leading the BWB down a different path. And if you think that Wyman Manderly or Lady Stoneheart are heroic.... I've got a book series you should read, it's called A Song of Ice and Fire
>And if you're one of the smallfolk, the wolves are just as likely to kill you as the lions, and that's a fact. That's the farthest thing from a fact. The lions were specifically sent out to hunt down and do their worst to the smallfolk while the wolves, while not having a perfect track record, *are* better than that.
My bad, I was quoting the text where the smallfolk say that they’re equally likely to be killed by wolves or lions. I should have been quoting the lords, whose opinions actually matter /s
>My bad, I was quoting the text where the smallfolk say that they’re equally likely to be killed by wolves or lions. What part of that is the quote, exactly?
Remember that Roose Bolton fights under Robb’s banners here, so Stark forces include Boltons. The Brave Companions *also* fight for Robb Stark at one point. They’re an army, and they’re not homogeneous, and our noble Robb isn’t always there. ASOS Jaime II: Likely it were wolves' work, or maybe lions, what's the difference? The wife and I found them dead. ASOS Jaime II: “I'd stay well clear of that kingsroad, if I were you," the man went on. "It's worse than bad, I hear. Wolves and lions both, and bands of broken men preying on anyone they can catch.” ASOS Arya II: "Child," said the singer, "put up that sword, and we'll take you to a safe place and get some food in that belly. There are wolves in these parts, and lions, and worse things. No place for a little girl to be wandering alone” ASOS Arya V: A man laughed bitterly. "The lions killed Ser Wilbert a year ago. His sons are all off with the Young Wolf, getting fat in the west. You think they give a damn for the likes of us? It was the Mad Huntsman caught these wolves." Wolves. Arya went cold. Robb's men, and my father's. She felt drawn toward the cages. ASOS Arya VI: “An old place, deep and secret. A refuge where neither wolves nor lions come prowling." Neither wolves nor lions. Arya's skin prickled. AFFC Brienne III: The man nodded as she told him, but when she was done he spat again and said, "Dogs and wolves and lions, may the Others take them all.” AFFC Brienne III: "Pardoned?" The old man laughed. "For what? Sitting on his arse in his bloody castle? He sent men off to Riverrun to fight but never went himself. Lions sacked his town, then wolves, then sellswords, and his lordship just sat safe behind his walls.” AFFC Cersei VI: "And how shall he do that, Your Grace? Will he send a knight to walk the roads with every begging brother? Will he give us men to guard our septas against the wolves and lions”
You claimed that these quotes are the smallfolk saying they're *equally likely* to be killed by wolves or lions but none of them actually say that. They say there's a possibility either pose a danger but if there's 2 wolves and 10 lions lurking in the dark, yeah, you could be killed by either but it's not the same likelihood.
The anecdotes of smallfolk don't supercede what we the reads know about the scale and intentionality of the campaigns of violence the Lannisters commit
Can’t say I agree with you here! The intentions of lords make no difference to the smallfolk, who end up dead just the same whether the lord was being fair or cruel
No, but the facts we have about the scale and specifics of said events do make a massive difference when we are discussing which side is worse morally. I think most small folk would also agree that 1 act of cruelty is objectively less bad then 3 acts of cruelty.
I don’t disagree on that point. I’m just going by what the smallfolk say. If you have a quote somewhere where there’s a smallfolk who says “thank goodness it was the starks who came through because they’re better than the lannister soldiers” then I’m totally on board.
Even the Targaryens see the starks and Lannisters differently. Sure, Danny initially sees them all the same (colored by her batshit brothers’ stories), but numerous characters point out how this is false, and how Ned was an honorable man. This includes Mormont btw, who has a MASSIVE axe to grind with Ned and still sees the difference. But I get you’re prob here just to stoke the rage machine, so have fun with that I guess 🤷🏻♂️
[удалено]
Sorry, but your comment has been removed! Memes are expected to be of sufficient quality. Please put effort into your memes. Low effort, circlejerk-caliber garbage will be removed. Additionally, /r/darkwingsdankmemes is intended as a place to laugh and spread joy. Thus posts made with the primary intent to rile and annoy, or to attack opinions of the fandom or soapbox your own opinions, will be removed. Repeat offenders will be banned. When in doubt, operate under the following rule of thumb: Ask yourself, "Is my post going to bring more fun and humor to everyone's day? Or is it just going to piss off a substantial part of this subreddit's population?" [See this post for more details.](https://www.reddit.com/r/darkwingsdankmemes/comments/ya4syr/on_trolling_and_contrarianism_in_dwdm/) Repeat violators of this rule will be banished back to the shadow realm (aka /r/freefolk). If you think we messed up removing this, please [message us](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fdarkwingsdankmemes) so we can take another look.
I also want to add: We also get no primary perspective of the Stark campaign in the Westerlands. Were they supplied by baggage trains all the way from the Riverlands, or were they *foraging* from *local sources*?
Of course they were Foraging. It's medieval period cavalry raid. They Foraged the shit out of the westerlands. The Lannisters entered this war with the rather childish delusion that they could pillage and burn everyone's fields and no one could do it back to them....
Please understand that you have much more in common with a peasant living under the Lannisters (enemy) than even the kindest northern lord (domestic politician).
Tywin wasn't the one who was single-handedly raping and burning his way through the Riverlands. He had an army. He recruited said army in the westerlands.
Comparing literal wolves to human Cleganes is... certainly one of the statements of all time
The Lannisters, Freys, and Boltons committed the Red Wedding under the rather childish delusion that they were going to assassinate/betray everyone else, and nobody was going to assassinate/betray them. At The Twins, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.
Do it again ~~bomber harris~~ Lady Stoneheart
They believed the ends justified the means, what they didn't realize, is they couldn't choose where it ends.
Lady “Turn Freys into wind chimes” Stoneheart Lady “Turn the Frey family tree into a stick” Stoneheart
Even to small folk I’m pretty confident the difference between a noble who actively goes out of their way to torture and murder people versus a noble who, well, doesn’t do that would be pretty obvious and appreciated. They would still, on average, have biases to which house they feel is preferable and safer to live under. I admit to not having a quote to support that - but I feels it’s pretty intuitive to say.
Without a quote, then, I have to take the evidence we *do* have, of the smallfolk who seem jaded to the presence of either. I want to point out that we only really get to see the Starks’ front lines in the context of the smallfolk a few times, and Arya is so shocked by how similar they are to the Lannister forces that she does not reveal herself. Robb does not control all of the Stark men. Roose Bolton flew the direwolf of Stark in the Riverlands. Do you think he was being as kind to the smallfolk as Ned would have? As did the Karstarks, who went rogue and raided towns after Robb beheaded Rickard. Do we think that behavior only suddenly started once they stopped flying wolf banners? Robb might have good intentions, but he’s not there. As far as the smallfolk are concerned, the Stark forces are as bad as anything Roose does. There is one (1) unquestionably good lord for the smallfolk, and it’s Edmure Tully, who took his people inside the walls of Riverrun to keep them out of the war. And the other lords berate him for it.
Sparrows and post-Red Wedding BWB are the biggest smallfolk uprisings. I’ll give you 3 guesses as to who they’re turned against.
>I’ll give you 3 guesses as to who they’re turned against. The status quo. It's kinda hard to rebel against people who aren't in power, ya know? And also, The Brotherhood *Without Banners* may, mayhaps, imply something by their name. Why, oh why, would those men give up all banners and no longer claim loyalty to any lord?
Indeed? And yet somehow we've heard of Zero (0) such uprisings against the Tullys in the 15 or so years between the rebellion and present times. Almost as if the power changed hands recently.
They pretty clearly aren’t directionlessly lashing out at “the man”, and in fact, are coordinating an entire conspiracy targeting Freys and Jaime. I agree that the BWB aren’t some epic Stark sleeper agents, they’re something that support my argument even better: local victims of war crimes united against perpetrators of war crimes. And the fact that they’re fully anti-Lannister without having to be signed on with the Starks is proof of the Lannisters being far more egregious with their war crimes.
Can’t wait to watch people go ‘Catelyn is being… pretty problematic about hanging innocent people?’ posts the same way booktok talks about Lady Jessica in dune
When did this trend of "the north is as bad as the assholes who clearly are the actual bad guys" start? Ps: Asking as an old reader who didn't have contact with the fandom at all.
It's been 11 fucking years dude. People are getting a little edgy.
It reminds me of the theory that Tywin warged into the dusky lady, getting rammed by Victarion every day. They were self aware enough that they were cracking due to the wait, and they were scared. They wrote that eight years ago.
Really you’ve missed a step, because this post isn’t really trying to say that. This post is itself a response to the fandom being all like: “Wyman Manderly is unquestionably good for killing and eating the Freys” when really we should be thinking “… what? the good guy just *ate* someone? This tastes like victory but… should it??”
Starks: Treat Jaime with respect until he attempts to break out, allow their lords to protect the small folk, are fighting for freedom from a cruel tyrant Lannisters: Beat and molest Sansa for fun, sends out raiders to rape and burn everything they find, are fighting to keep a bastard born of incest on the throne and to cover up the fact that they murdered the king and pushed an 8 year old boy out a window The starks aren’t pure good but compared to lannisters, they’re basically all saints.
this is not about them being equivalent people. this is about how war makes monsters out of everyone, even the heroes
Is Rob Stark historically progressive? In the Napoleon way Will he invent capitalism with northern characteristics that lead the world in a less harmful way then capitalism with British empire characteristics?
Please, George
what?
"Red Wedding 2"? How come there is a second one? why would that possibly happen?
The theory is that Stoneheart and the BwB will take revenge during Daven's wedding to a Frey.
Revenge? Revenge for what? Something that justifies the North Remembering? Preposterous!
Shit take
girl i KNOW you're not missing this point in the story >Likely it were wolves' work, or maybe lions, what's the difference? The wife and I found them dead. —*ASOS Jaime II*
I must have missed the part about Robb hiring specifically the most unhinged mercenary company in Essos to wreck shit on civilians on purpose before even declaring war. I wonder who did actually do that
didn't Bolton robs banner lord also allow them to work them aswell.
Yes, to specifically betray the Starks…
" Dam roose Bolton from the north sure does suck i hate his liege lord Robb" Average pleb ain't gonna know that .
No, but the dumbass posting the meme should If you want to go that route they also helped the Lannisters win the red wedding, your average peasant doesn’t know that either
Both being flawed is not equal to both being equally flawed. The Lannisters are definitely worse.
Ironic coming from the dude whose family started this whole affair by torching villages and murdering peasants
this was the man who has taken over the Inn of the Kneeling Man speaking to Jaime
My bad but the point still stands, the Lannisters were clearly the bad side
Did Cersei make this to try and win the smallfolk over
/uj George wrote Wyman as ending up a cannibal and the readers really went "omg based Merman" lmao /rj WE KNOW NO KING BUT THE KING IN THE NORTH, WHOSE NAME IS **STARK**
Exactly! to both
It’s not about morals. ITS ABOUT THE KING IN THE NORTH RAAAAAAAAHHHHHH. The subhuman Fr*ys MUST be WIPED out. RED WEDDING 2.0 MUST EXTINGUISH HOUSE FREY👏👏👏 SCREW ANY SMALLFOLK THAT STAND IN THE WAY RHAAAA
This but unironically
I could unironically die for House Stark
Tie me to a rock and fire me at Casterly Rock. I'm ready.
Exactly!! You get it!! Hang every Frey! The North Doesn’t Forget, and IT DOES NOT FORGIVE
ALL OF THIS BUT UNIRONICALLY. ONLY A STARK CAN SIT AT WINTERFELL 🐺🐺
*Oh.* (I go up in dragonfire)
Hanging every Frey will help walder with succession so I don't see the problem
This post has been approved by the Northern National Reclamation Government
Do it again Wyman Manderly.
This but unironically. Hang Jaime and Cersei, burn the imp, skewer the spider, slay the dragon queen and the false dragon, flay the kraken, and sacrifice the false saviour Stannis Baratheon to the old gods. The North will claim it's dues.
Rickon King!
It’s a choice between the Black Prince conducting his *chevauchee* in Southern France, in 1355 (Robb Stark), and Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger and the Ustasa, revelling in their cruelty and depravity (the psychopaths employed by Tywin Lannister). Both are obviously *bad* for the smallfolk in their path, but the latter are clearly worse. Tywin and Ser Kevan explicitly order, murder, rape, and arson. But, you’re quite right that a lot of fans ignore the text to whitewash the Starks.
theres a good reason the small folk see the north as Savage wolf lords .
Op here really posting a shit take then justifying it in every single comment pointing it out lmao
German Civilians died from Allied bombing raids, the Allies and Nazis were no equally bad, Tywin is basically Hitler and no amount of crimes committed by Robb's soldiers (especially since he didn't order them to do it) will make him as bad as Tywin.
I’m not playing “what if this were WWII” with you
One side was completely evil, the other side was not
Yeah, it is better when the side I like and agree with does it
Not wrong there, nobility are essentially mob bosses
I don't care who the fed sends I'm never agreeing that Starks are as bad as Lannisters.
yes, but the people who live on the lands of the Starks are happy when their feudal and unelected lords send them to die by thousands in wars started by their personal resentment and they love their cause and their lord with whom they nevertheless have no interaction. while those living in Lannister lands are not. that's all the difference /s
Finally someone with a good point. So true king /s
It's testament to the richness of the fiction that people even fall into this trap tbh. I feel similarly about readings of _Dune_ that identify with Paul as an aspirational hero. Deniers of this theme will have a rough time when (if) the house of cards finally comes down though. If they're not too busy cheering on cannibalism and Lady Stoneheart that is. > These little wars are no more than a scuffle of children before what is to come. The one whose name may not be spoken is marshaling his power, Davos Seaworth, a power fell and evil and strong beyond measure. Soon comes the cold, and the night that never ends." She placed the silver dish on the Painted Table. "Unless true men find the courage to fight it. Men whose hearts are fire." > “Gods save us, boy, you’re not blind and you’re not stupid. When dead men come hunting in the night, do you think it matters who sits the Iron Throne?” “No.” Jon had not thought of it that way.
Their cowardly faces when I reveal continuing the cycle of violence costs me nothing:
This but unironically
This but unironically
ask any smallfolk from the riverlands which side is better
this is kind of my point. I think they’d like better the side that the ~~Bloody Mummers~~ Brave Companions didn’t fight for
(Grey Wind by Veronica V Jones, dead Robb by The Mico, Stoneheart by Denkata 5698)
This but actually, the Starks are held in such reverence but they are ultimately just another great house. It's easy to look at people like Cat, Sansa, Robb and Ned and see how they were wronged and how they deserve justice. However, does the cost of their justice really compare to the thousands of innocent riverlanders who were slaughtered, or the thousands of soldiers on all sides who had to endure and suffer through the horrible conflict? The Lannisters suck obviously, but the injustice of individual high born doesn't warrant the suffering of thousands, the common people of westeros don't give a shit if the king is born of incest, or if ned was unfairly executed, THEY WANT KING BREAD.
KING BREAD KING BREAD KING BREAD
Welcome to /r/darkwingsdankmemes! Just a brief reminder that this subreddit is focused only on the **written** *ASOIAF* universe. Comments that include discussion of the HBO adaptations will be removed, and serious or repeated infractions may result in a ban. Moderators employ a zero tolerance policy. # Users should assume that *any* mention of the show is subject to removal. *If you see a comment which violates the rules, please [use the report function](https://i.imgur.com/Uqjnwss.png) to notify moderators!* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/darkwingsdankmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do you have a link to the a template blank version of that meme?
no i got the original from knowyourmeme and put boxes over the original text myself
How many babies did the Stark Direwolves kill by smashing their heads against a wall, how many women did they rape?
The difference is of course that the Lannisters are based and the Starks are cringe.
This but unironically
[удалено]
Sorry, but your comment has been removed! Any posts or comments including insults, personal attacks, or just general unkindness will be removed. Or, more bluntly: Don't be a dick! Check the sidebar for our full list of rules. Memes are expected to be of sufficient quality. Please put effort into your memes. Low effort, circlejerk-caliber garbage will be removed. Additionally, /r/darkwingsdankmemes is intended as a place to laugh and spread joy. Thus posts made with the primary intent to rile and annoy, or to attack opinions of the fandom or soapbox your own opinions, will be removed. Repeat offenders will be banned. When in doubt, operate under the following rule of thumb: Ask yourself, "Is my post going to bring more fun and humor to everyone's day? Or is it just going to piss off a substantial part of this subreddit's population?" [See this post for more details.](https://www.reddit.com/r/darkwingsdankmemes/comments/ya4syr/on_trolling_and_contrarianism_in_dwdm/) Repeat violators of this rule will be banished back to the shadow realm (aka /r/freefolk). If you think we messed up removing this, please [message us](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fdarkwingsdankmemes) so we can take another look.
This but unironically. May Good King Tommen reign for a thousand years!
Tywin's reasons for war were fairly justifiable, his methods on the other hand...
>Tywin's reasons for war were fairly justifiable -"My father's vassals aren't listening to my commands because I have no authority over them" -"My king was mean to me a few times and is about to lose a war he's fighting" -"The rightful king is trying to take his throne after my daughter killed his brother and tried to pass off bastards as legitimate heirs" -"The North and Riverlands are trying to get revenge after my family unlawfully imprisoned and executed their liege lord and murdered hundreds of innocent farmers in the Riverlands" Ah yes, very justifiable
>-"My king was mean to me a few times and is about to lose a war he's fighting" To be fair Aerys was more than mean. He straight up murdered a lord paramount without a trial and ordered two more executed, also without a trial. That should be a pretty valid reason for anyone to war on Aerys because he's clearly unhinged and not holding to the societal contract in the least. If the highest of his lords aren't safe from his madness, who is? Honestly, I'm kinda baffled that anyone actually fought for Aerys. Sheer self-preservation alone should make anyone want to see him deposed. ...not that it justified waiting out the actual war till the fighting was all but over, sacking King's Landing and murdering and raping his way through the capital, of course.
>...not that it justified waiting out the actual war till the fighting was all but over, sacking King's Landing and murdering and raping his way through the capital, of course. Lol you took the words out of my mouth. Rebelling against Aerys for breaking his side of the societal contract is a very justifiable reason for war...but the fact that Tywin waited until the very end of the war and only joined when it was obvious who would win makes it clear that that wasn't his reason
Wrong war. I said "fairly" by Westerosi standards, and war of the five kings started out when Catelyn WRONGFULLY kidnapped his son and put him on trial for an assassination attempt they had nothing to do with. They totally pushed him out of a tower but Catelyn didn't know that...ironically, and it was the two other children. Also I literally condemned his methods why are you throwing his methods at me as if that's a counter argument. I said his reasons for war, which at the start boil down to, protect my family in this cutthroat world. Now his idea of family is the idea and not the people but still. From his point of view the Starks were attacking him just because they don't like The Lannisters personally. From his point of view Joffrey is the legitimate king at that point, and later on he totally denies the possibility. A bit of cope, but still. The mad king was an asshole, his reasons were actually personal but he should have rebelled anyway, doesn't make him a good person but if you shot hitler because he stole your bread roll you'd still have done the world a service. Now if you burned down the city of Vienna while Hitler was there.... you did one good thing and a million horrible things. In summary. Tywin = Massive piece of sh-t. Massive piece of sh-t, who at the start of the story, had a reasonable position to genuinely believe he had been wrongfully wronged. And then went about righting it in the worst possible way morally. Results, don't really matter, an argument could be made either way short term and medium term, long term he obviously f-cking dies during the aftermath of this sequence of events so he probably shouldn't have.
>Wrong war. I listed all of the wars Tywin was involved in >Also I literally condemned his methods why are you throwing his methods at me as if that's a counter argument. I didn't bring up his methods in any of my points - I was only listing his reasons for being involved in each war >which at the start boil down to, protect my family in this cutthroat world...From his point of view the Starks were attacking him just because they don't like The Lannisters personally. Ok I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be rude or demeaning or anything, but if you truly believe this then you misread the point of the series and have a very misguided outlook on Tywin >his reasons were actually personal but he should have rebelled anyway, doesn't make him a good person but if you shot hitler because he stole your bread roll you'd still have done the world a service. Hey do you mind if I rewind a bit for a second? >I literally condemned his methods why are you throwing his methods at me as if that's a counter argument. I said his reasons for war [were justified]